Hannibal
-
Posts
751 -
Joined
-
Last visited
Content Type
Profiles
Forums
Gallery
Events
Blogs
Posts posted by Hannibal
-
-
Dutchyg: What's your Internet Provider (ask your parents if you don't know)?
Also, everyone suggesting him to renew his DHCP lease... that will happen *anyway* if he reboots the pc, and as he's been having the problem for 2 weeks, and no admin in their right minds has their DHCP leases set to last so long, it probably won't help at all.
Dutchyg: if you're using Firefox, you should use the instructions Aldeon posted for 'Mozilla'. I doubt they will help though, and clearing the cache from Tools > Options (Inside Firefox) should do the same thing anyway.
-
It is easy to use. It's just that it doesn't do everything for you.
Alright.
I want an editor that:
-- does syntax coloring
-- runs on X and has a decent GUI (so nano's out)
-- doesn't require all the K libraries while I'm running Gnome (bye Kate / KEdit)
-- doesn't use a modal interface (vi is out)
-- uses [bleep]ing NORMAL shortcuts (Ctrl+C, Ctrl+V, Ctrl+S, Ctrl+O... it's not that hard...) (this means xemacs is out, fwiw)
-- isn't a full-blown IDE, so it actually runs normally on older computers (Eclipse out)
-- doesn't run on Java, so it actually runs normally on older computers (JEdit out)
-- Allows me to specify indenting (tab = fixed 4 space-indent, damnit!)
-- Does Regular Expression searching.
I have apt-get, but if I can't find an editor that has all that, then I'm still screwed. Which is why I'm ordering a win2k cd, as at least I'll have some usability on my laptop when I want to work. As an added bonus, I can do something else than work, ie, play some games when I feel like it.
On windows, there's EmEditor and Editplus and prolly Bob knows what else, but for some reason, however many editors linux has, I haven't found one that actually suits the above simple requirements.
-
Glad to know you fixed that one AD :D
Oh, and thanks for posting the name of the tool you used :)
*memorizes*
-
-
Rick cannot play poker if his life was depended on it...
Arcticrunite couldn't play MTG well even if his life depended on it.
*runs*
-
I used to type full sentences (eg. start with a Capital letter, end with punctuation (period or otherwise)) even on IM networks and on IRC. I grew out of that slowly, which might be for the worst. :(
I do still try and write normally (well, using Capitalization and Punctuation is normal to me, anyway) when I'm on forums, newsgroups and the like, and I haven't had people complain about my style of writing, so I'm assuming I'm doing alright. :)
-
No its not just a theory, how many times must that be explained?
There exists critics of the spherical earth, like these they can complain and put forth baseless claims right up to their death; its still baseless claims.
Well, I wouldn't exactly have expected you to read the past few pages where we've already discussed this...
http://forum.tip.it/viewtopic.php?p=2481783#2481783
Try again.
-
What contains more brain power, the guy who wrote the bible or thousands of scientists.
That's just a stupid way of nihilating the debate we're having here. There wasn't 'one guy' who wrote the bible, and arguably, Darwin just about on his own set the foundations for a theory of evolution. And even so, insinuating that whatever took more brain power must be better is silly. To take an example you yourself used a bit down: what contains more brain power, a congregate of cardinals and bishops or galileo galilei on his own?
Religion isn't science, if you don't want your kid to know certain facts then give the teacher an excuse slip to excuse your kid from that section of learning.
It's not fact, it's a theory about things we call 'facts' (whether that means they're 100% true depends on your definition of 100% true). And I'm not arguing it shouldn't be tought, I'm arguing we should also teach students the relativity of the whole issue - it's just a theory, and there are many critics of it. In a social science / history of science class, that's an important thing to learn, otherwise your kids grow up as narrow-minded idiots who won't believe anything that's not in their biology textbook.
This modern world is of facts, religion used to keep us all ordely but society has evolved and religion causes more problems than solutions. It gets in the way of knowledge and we need knowledge to advance.Yeah, I can see that being true. Knowledge gave us the A-Bomb, H-Bomb, neural gas (hope that's the right English word), and who knows what other terrible things. Meanwhile, just about every religion on the planet was preaching peace. Writing religion off because you don't like some of its practitioners is not very logical.
Maybe people should know that it was the church who kept Europe in the dark ages.I'd say that's a strong way to put it, for one. For another, maybe people should know that the Spanish conquered large parts of Europe back then - let's still hate them for what they did back then, because that makes perfect sense! *resists urge to put a roll-eye smilie here*
Condemning an organization, or a country, for things that happened more than 500 years ago (roughly) is not going to get us anywhere.
I'm not saying relgion is bad or anything but I think people should keep religion to themselves.I'm not saying science is bad, but I think people should be taught objectively about religion. If you don't do that, they can't understand why others are religious, and that leads to spite and conflict. Understanding is the first step to coexisting. Sure, nobody needs to be 'converted', but having a general understanding of what people do and don't believe is good. Check out the topic about islam, lots of people commented that muslims were all fanatics and whatnot - can you see how their ignorance of what islam really is made them think like that? Having classes on what religions believe, in an objective manner, is not a bad thing at all, in my opinion.
-
Your explanation sounded like the species adapted to its surroundings by doing something throughout its life to bring about the change.
Also you should note that Natural Selection does not involve Speciation; the separation of sub-species.
An example of evolution is the early dolphin when it developed it's fins because a mutation caused one dolphin to have a deformity - a primitive fin. This 'deformity' allowed it to swim better and catch more fish for it's offspring and ensured it's success. This mutant could create much more offspring then the others and it's 'deformity' was passed on to it's siblings. This occured much much more over the millions of years and created what is now known as a dolphin. This happened all over the planet with all species and that is what evolution is.
Right, and in any case, just this theory doesn't provide any way to predict which features will dominate, simply because the environment and the species are too complex to make any logical conclusion out. So my original point remains - the theory of evolution doesn't predict anything.
Skunk Cabbage. That's like saying we can't predict the weather. Obviously, meteorology is way to complicated to predict what the weather will be like a year from now. But we can make limited predictions about the next few days.
Evolution is even more complicated, but we can likewise make predictions. Example: A doctor makes an anti-bacterial drug. Theory of evolution predicts that within five years a new type of bacteria will have evolved that is immune to the drug. The prediction is then proven correct when, a year later, there are resistant strains of bacteria. This actually happens, resistant bacteria have developed in Africa before their respective drugs have even become legal in America.
Saying "the theory of evolution doesn't predict anything" is incorrect. Just because we are not smart enough to understand it fully does not mean it can't predict things.
I predict that within 5000 years, humans will have found a solution for the smog problem. The basis of this is human ingenuity. Does that make human ingenuity a scientific theory? Your 'prediction' is not derived off the exact theory, and still random guesswork. In fact, it may take 10 years if, apart from the lab-tested ones, no bacteria of that sort are exposed to the drug, or if this bacteria replicates their genes not as fast, or if the drug stops this replication process, or or or or... Evolution (should it exist) is far too complicated (according to that theory) to be used for accurate and useful predictions.
Incidentally, is it really that hard to reply to my post without insulting me or mindlessly trash-talking about what I wrote?
-
Your explanation sounded like the species adapted to its surroundings by doing something throughout its life to bring about the change.
Also you should note that Natural Selection does not involve Speciation; the separation of sub-species.
An example of evolution is the early dolphin when it developed it's fins because a mutation caused one dolphin to have a deformity - a primitive fin. This 'deformity' allowed it to swim better and catch more fish for it's offspring and ensured it's success. This mutant could create much more offspring then the others and it's 'deformity' was passed on to it's siblings. This occured much much more over the millions of years and created what is now known as a dolphin. This happened all over the planet with all species and that is what evolution is.
Right, and in any case, just this theory doesn't provide any way to predict which features will dominate, simply because the environment and the species are too complex to make any logical conclusion out. So my original point remains - the theory of evolution doesn't predict anything.
-
So, why am I saying all this? Because some people here seem to believe that 'theories' like Evolution are based on fact, and thus they are true. They're missing a point - the theory of evolution is just that, a theory. It may go well with the facts we know, but as Necromagus pointed out, it doesn't let us make scientific predictions, nor does it have a clear mechanism (ie, there's no way to logically derive how evolution will unfold). So whatever the case, the theory of evolution isn't perfect (nor is any other theory). Hence, I don't see a problem with alternatives being taught, as long as there is some explanation on scientific paradigms, and why one should or shouldn't support one theory or another.
It seems you're missing the point, the scientific theory of Evolution is a scientific theory, ID isn't even a testable hypothesis. Sure, teach the alternatives if you can find one.
Evolution has made predictions that currently test true, all life on earth sharing a common ancestor; research in genetics have shown this to be accurate.
Again, if you know of any alternative theories (theory in the scientific context); you should tell someone.
I can't accurately predict how humans are going to evolve next using the evolution theory. It doesn't define a clear mechanism on what will happen next either (where clear would be clear as in the Newton's law of gravity or whatnot - fuzzy terms such as 'most suited to the environment' are up to just about any interpretation). According to ID, nothing more will happen, and there is no evolution, hence the prediction part is that earth will stay somewhat the same (at least, if nature had its way. Of course, humans tend to screw up the earth quite a bit on their own). The fact that all life on earth shares a common ancestor is not a prediction at all, as it is about the past.
Oh, and again, GhostRanger was right. :)
-
December 27th, 2005: Hannibal and Ghost Ranger agreed on something.
At least we don't need to make it a new year's resolution ;)
-
That's all well and good, but we're at a point now where science has a LOT more backing, and our current theories have a lot less inconsistancies than theories on the same subjects centuries ago. We should teach the theories that have a LOT of credibility and a lot of backing - not just things that are based on faith and have no objective credibility.
I agree we should teach the things with lots of credibility, but that doesn't mean you can't point out that nothing is 100% certain, and point out alternatives? And anyway - credibility is relative, as shown by the previous postl. In other 100-200 years some people probably think we were crazy believing Einstein and Darwin to be right (just like GhostRanger pointed out - missed that post as I didn't see there was a new page ;) ).
-
Get Windows XP SP2.
Get a firewall (such as ZoneAlarm or Kerio Personal Firewall)
Links for firewalls are in the stickies on this forum.
-
Its the Law of Gravity...not the theory. Therefore, your point = not valid. :roll:
Why do so many people make such opinionated posts about topics they have no idea about.
If you want to be technical, Newton's (and EinsteinÃÆââââ¬Å¡Ã¬Ã¢ââ¬Å¾Ã¢s) gravitation is in fact theory. Newton's law of universal gravitation is the law contained inside the theory. Do you really think all the work Newton presented could be contained in one single law? Sure you get the basic idea but you then miss out on all the small details such as the force having to be communicated instantly, gravity of a single body, the 3 dimensional vector form of gravity etc. How about his reservation about ÃÆââââ¬Å¡Ã¬Ãâ¦Ã¢â¬Åwhat gravity isÃÆââââ¬Å¡Ã¬ÃâÃ
-
Guess I make it about 50:50 then.
it was 3 on 3 before you commented (including the topic starter). Explain your math :)
Incidentally, I think it's not exactly funny. Maybe I lack some "American under-13" genes or something.
-
0. Can the original poster please use that funny button titled 'Search' at the top of this forum.
1. Can we please move this to Tech and Computers, where it belongs.
2. Can we please have this locked as it's been posted over and over again, and is of no use to anyone.
-
In general it's hard to fix it, especially if chkdisk has already had its way with it. There are, however, all kinds of file recovery programs available on the internet. Some are free, some are not. I suggest you look around (Google File recovery), read reviews, and be careful not to spend too much money on them (think about how much the data you'd get back is actually worth to you, and multiply that by about a 1/10 chance that you actually get the data back, even with the help of those programs).
-
anyway, took a second to google this propably some help to a few people.
http://www.pixelfreak.com/tutorial/ I think another tutorial has been posted before in this thread somewhere, not really sure.
It was in the first post. Reading must be so hard for all those other people who missed it, and especially for those who failed to do a google search after missing the link.
-
Someone please inform me why nearly everyone thinks on this thread thinks it's necessary to kill people or do illegal stuff? It may not matter to you anymore, but what do you think - that your family will be happy that you're the one who blew up half of new york, or turned into a murderer days before death, or...? I mean, geesh... :?
Anywho. I have nought but one quote for you:
"If I knew (the world would end tomorrow || I would die tomorrow || The kingdom of God came tomorrow), I would still plant a tree today." (Attributed to Martin Luther, Martin Luther King Jr., and also claimed to be a made-up quote that neither of them ever said).
So. I would not do much differently. I'd say goodbye, I suppose, to those I love. Apart from that, not much else.
-
Piano, but I've already been playing the piano for 8 years (that is, had lessons for 8 or so)
-
ASUSÃÆââ¬Å¡Ãâî A8N-E: DUAL DDR, S-ATA, x16 slot, 3 PCI etc
Hard Drive
SATA 160 GB HARD DISK @ 7200rpm 8mb cache (Special Offer)
Second Hard Drive
SATA 80 GB HARD DISK @ 7200rpm 8mb cache
RAID
Sound Card
SoundBlaster Audigy SE 7.1 24-bit (Digital & Analogue): ÃÆââ¬Å¡Ãâã16
Modem
56K MODEM
Why not just one drive of 250GB? It'll be cheaper, and slightly more than what you have now. Also don't see why you want the soundcard, ASUS boards have 7.1 or so surround sound on board. Might not be the same quality as soundblaster cards, but personally I can't hear the difference.
You probably won't hear it anyway with 7 pound speakers...
And what's with the modem? Do you actually need that or something? :\
-
i am an anticrist... my mother is a believer i didnt, then the whole group of cristians start calling me a devilschild, i got stalked. some cristains talked with me about jezus but they kept comming closer to me i felt i as going to be abused and stuff... they had to insult me for more than 5 year and they still dont quit... they cant see me as a normal human.. so i started to insult them.
im 16 and they are still trying to convince me god exsists, i wont believe.. on one side they try to convince me and on the other side they insult me..
That's not really antichrist ;)
More of an atheist :P
i hate all cristians, they ruined my pride for me :evil:
Because hating an entire group of people for what some people claiming to be part of that group did must make you so proud...
-
I think I'm going to start a page on Wikipedia detailing "Hannibal's addendum" to Godwin's law, where whomever utters either "grow up" or "get a life" in an online discussion automatically loses whatever debate in progress. At least it'd reduce the useless bickering.
As for suggestions, I think the original poster got plenty. If not, how about discussing the usefullness and/or uselessness of having an online discussion, and possible consequences that those discussions may have for you in your own life.
stupid javascript >:O
in Tech and Computers
Posted
Aldeon, please don't say you'll do X for a user if it isn't even possible (and you clearly don't know what you're talking about). JavaScript is client side, so it cannot write a file to the server (nor can it write files to the client machine, as that would be a security issue...). Hence you can't increment the counter from javascript.
Some mistakes in everything you said on this topic (I really can't be bothered looking it all through, but whatever)
1. 'then make it back into a string' - javascript doesn't typically typecast variables. It 'magically' converts between them as necessary.
2. He did define the variable (var number = 1;)
3. JS supports switch statements fine.
4. number++ is a lot cleaner than number = number + 1, and will execute much faster in most (good) js evaluators
5. is not a valid tag, nor is . onmouseover and onload are valid attributes for tags though, so in this case he probably meant:
6. document.write() is BAD and it SHOULD NOT BE USED. Use DOM methods instead, eg:
document.lastChild.appendChild(document.createElement("p").appendChild(document.createTextNode("Some text")))